"Team Stats" vs "Individual Stats"

Giant Octopodes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
981
Points
113
Location
Michigan
The latest strategy to try to diminish Tom Brady is to talk about how wins, championships, and so forth, aren't "individual stats", they're "team stats". The argument is typically used when talking about how you should pay more attention to yards, completions, touchdowns, whatever.

Frankly it's so moronic and disingenuous it pisses me off, so I'm going to rant for a bit.

[Rant]
Let's look at the most classic example of a "individual stat", the Touchdown pass. I've checked, only two times in NFL history has a QB thrown a touchdown pass to himself- Marcus Mariota in 2018 and Brad Johnson in 1997. So setting those two aside for a moment, at minimum there are two people involved in the play, the QB and the eligible receiver. However, in order for the pass play to be successful, the QB needs to be upright to make it. That requires an offensive line. On top of that, the coverage needs to be right. Which requires the other eligible receivers to be running their routes.

All of those elements coming together successfully requires you have someone planning and implementing a strategy, the offensive coordinator. As well as the strategy existing, in order to be successfully implemented, the players need to be coached up to properly execute their role, which requires the QB coach, wide receivers coach, offensive line coach, and so forth.

All of this is required because there's players on the other side trying to prevent this from happening. It's not just about your QB and receiver, it's your receivers vs their cornerbacks and safeties, your offensive line vs their defensive line, your offensive coordinator vs their defensive coordinator, and so on and so forth. All being overseen by your head coach vs their head coach.

In short, it's your 11 players plus supporting staff, or TEAM, outperforming and out executing their 11 players plus supporting staff, or TEAM. There is no action which occurs on the football field which occurs in a vacuum. Not running backs getting rushing yardage, not field goals, and Certainly not passing yards, or touchdowns, or what have you. ALL stats are reflective of what your TEAM was able to accomplish while you were playing, and of the outcome of plays which occurred while you were involved.

This is just as true of Touchdowns as it is Wins. A QB is not wholly responsible for a Win or a Loss, that is true. They are also not wholly responsible for a Touchdown or an Int. And simultaneously, they are responsible for contributing towards and participating in a win or loss, just as they are responsible for contributing towards and participating in a touchdown or an interception. There's no meaningful reason to separate out discussions of one vs the other, other than to try to bolster a weak and pathetic argument which can't survive the harsh light of reality.

I'm sorry if that is harsh and jarring to the fans who live in Fantasy Land where they think Stafford is a good QB, whom wish to preserve the reputation of their Fantasy QB. But at the end of the day winning or losing matters, and QBs don't get to abdicate their role in it even if they want to, any more than they get to abdicate their role in Ints or TDs.
[/Rant]
 
The latest strategy to try to diminish Tom Brady is to talk about how wins, championships, and so forth, aren't "individual stats", they're "team stats". The argument is typically used when talking about how you should pay more attention to yards, completions, touchdowns, whatever.

I truly have not heard anyone trying to diminish Brady's resume, but I also avoid the talking heads on TV and radio, so perhaps I'm just ill-informed.
 
The latest strategy to try to diminish Tom Brady is to talk about how wins, championships, and so forth, aren't "individual stats", they're "team stats". The argument is typically used when talking about how you should pay more attention to yards, completions, touchdowns, whatever.

Frankly it's so moronic and disingenuous it pisses me off, so I'm going to rant for a bit.

[Rant]
Let's look at the most classic example of a "individual stat", the Touchdown pass. I've checked, only two times in NFL history has a QB thrown a touchdown pass to himself- Marcus Mariota in 2018 and Brad Johnson in 1997. So setting those two aside for a moment, at minimum there are two people involved in the play, the QB and the eligible receiver. However, in order for the pass play to be successful, the QB needs to be upright to make it. That requires an offensive line. On top of that, the coverage needs to be right. Which requires the other eligible receivers to be running their routes.

All of those elements coming together successfully requires you have someone planning and implementing a strategy, the offensive coordinator. As well as the strategy existing, in order to be successfully implemented, the players need to be coached up to properly execute their role, which requires the QB coach, wide receivers coach, offensive line coach, and so forth.

All of this is required because there's players on the other side trying to prevent this from happening. It's not just about your QB and receiver, it's your receivers vs their cornerbacks and safeties, your offensive line vs their defensive line, your offensive coordinator vs their defensive coordinator, and so on and so forth. All being overseen by your head coach vs their head coach.

In short, it's your 11 players plus supporting staff, or TEAM, outperforming and out executing their 11 players plus supporting staff, or TEAM. There is no action which occurs on the football field which occurs in a vacuum. Not running backs getting rushing yardage, not field goals, and Certainly not passing yards, or touchdowns, or what have you. ALL stats are reflective of what your TEAM was able to accomplish while you were playing, and of the outcome of plays which occurred while you were involved.

This is just as true of Touchdowns as it is Wins. A QB is not wholly responsible for a Win or a Loss, that is true. They are also not wholly responsible for a Touchdown or an Int. And simultaneously, they are responsible for contributing towards and participating in a win or loss, just as they are responsible for contributing towards and participating in a touchdown or an interception. There's no meaningful reason to separate out discussions of one vs the other, other than to try to bolster a weak and pathetic argument which can't survive the harsh light of reality.

I'm sorry if that is harsh and jarring to the fans who live in Fantasy Land where they think Stafford is a good QB, whom wish to preserve the reputation of their Fantasy QB. But at the end of the day winning or losing matters, and QBs don't get to abdicate their role in it even if they want to, any more than they get to abdicate their role in Ints or TDs.
[/Rant]

Yes it's a team game Not one single stat is possible without all of the above, for any position, including kicker. Well stated.
 
Of all the stats attributed to QBs I've always thought that wins was the most meaningless. It's not the same as awarding a win to a pitcher. A shit defense or ST gaffe can undermine a great game by a QB and cost a team a win.
 
Of all the stats attributed to QBs I've always thought that wins was the most meaningless. It's not the same as awarding a win to a pitcher. A shit defense or ST gaffe can undermine a great game by a QB and cost a team a win.

This is very true, but how is it any different from a strike right between the numbers being bobbled by the receiver, deflected into the air, and a surefire reception being turned into an Int? Or conversely a defender who outright catches an Int just dropping it in an unforced way, as we saw yesterday? There's always more factors at play than just the game delivered by the QB directly. I get what you mean in that games can be won or lost while the QB isn't even on the field, but it's the starting QB we're talking about. Barring injury mid game or something, let's not pretend like he's uninvolved in that game being won or lost, his hands touch the ball on nearly every offensive snap and the offense runs through him.
 
This is very true, but how is it any different from a strike right between the numbers being bobbled by the receiver, deflected into the air, and a surefire reception being turned into an Int? Or conversely a defender who outright catches an Int just dropping it in an unforced way, as we saw yesterday? There's always more factors at play than just the game delivered by the QB directly. I get what you mean in that games can be won or lost while the QB isn't even on the field, but it's the starting QB we're talking about. Barring injury mid game or something, let's not pretend like he's uninvolved in that game being won or lost, his hands touch the ball on nearly every offensive snap and the offense runs through him.

I'm not, I just gave a couple quick examples. QB play, IMO, can be more of a cause contributing to loss than a win at times (ie: running in to your lineman's ass and fumbling the ball).
 
I'm not, I just gave a couple quick examples. QB play, IMO, can be more of a cause contributing to loss than a win at times (ie: running in to your lineman's ass and fumbling the ball).

I can definitely agree with that :toast:
 
I think it has more to do with Luck. the Patriots have just been lucky for the last 17 years.

:coffee:
 
I think it has more to do with Luck. the Patriots have just been lucky for the last 17 years.

:coffee:

Never in their entire history have they won a game without cheating.
 
Originally Posted by Hogfarmer View Post
I think it has more to do with Luck. the Patriots have just been lucky for the last 17 years.

Well then at least 2001 was earned since that was 18 years ago.
 
I truly have not heard anyone trying to diminish Brady's resume, but I also avoid the talking heads on TV and radio, so perhaps I'm just ill-informed.

Spend 5 minutes on twitter

---------- Post added at 09:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------

I'm not, I just gave a couple quick examples. QB play, IMO, can be more of a cause contributing to loss than a win at times (ie: running in to your lineman's ass and fumbling the ball).

Qb in most cases is the most important player on the team. Its also the most sought after position, so I would think it contributes quite a bit to wins.
 
The latest strategy to try to diminish Tom Brady is to talk about how wins, championships, and so forth, aren't "individual stats", they're "team stats". The argument is typically used when talking about how you should pay more attention to yards, completions, touchdowns, whatever.

Frankly it's so moronic and disingenuous it pisses me off, so I'm going to rant for a bit.

[Rant]
Let's look at the most classic example of a "individual stat", the Touchdown pass. I've checked, only two times in NFL history has a QB thrown a touchdown pass to himself- Marcus Mariota in 2018 and Brad Johnson in 1997. So setting those two aside for a moment, at minimum there are two people involved in the play, the QB and the eligible receiver. However, in order for the pass play to be successful, the QB needs to be upright to make it. That requires an offensive line. On top of that, the coverage needs to be right. Which requires the other eligible receivers to be running their routes.

All of those elements coming together successfully requires you have someone planning and implementing a strategy, the offensive coordinator. As well as the strategy existing, in order to be successfully implemented, the players need to be coached up to properly execute their role, which requires the QB coach, wide receivers coach, offensive line coach, and so forth.

All of this is required because there's players on the other side trying to prevent this from happening. It's not just about your QB and receiver, it's your receivers vs their cornerbacks and safeties, your offensive line vs their defensive line, your offensive coordinator vs their defensive coordinator, and so on and so forth. All being overseen by your head coach vs their head coach.

In short, it's your 11 players plus supporting staff, or TEAM, outperforming and out executing their 11 players plus supporting staff, or TEAM. There is no action which occurs on the football field which occurs in a vacuum. Not running backs getting rushing yardage, not field goals, and Certainly not passing yards, or touchdowns, or what have you. ALL stats are reflective of what your TEAM was able to accomplish while you were playing, and of the outcome of plays which occurred while you were involved.

This is just as true of Touchdowns as it is Wins. A QB is not wholly responsible for a Win or a Loss, that is true. They are also not wholly responsible for a Touchdown or an Int. And simultaneously, they are responsible for contributing towards and participating in a win or loss, just as they are responsible for contributing towards and participating in a touchdown or an interception. There's no meaningful reason to separate out discussions of one vs the other, other than to try to bolster a weak and pathetic argument which can't survive the harsh light of reality.

I'm sorry if that is harsh and jarring to the fans who live in Fantasy Land where they think Stafford is a good QB, whom wish to preserve the reputation of their Fantasy QB. But at the end of the day winning or losing matters, and QBs don't get to abdicate their role in it even if they want to, any more than they get to abdicate their role in Ints or TDs.
[/Rant]

I'm not sure if you're ranting against the stats? But individual stats are for comparison to other players . But stats are always incomplete. .. the best stats are meta-stats which combine several which increases the truthfulness, I think. Like passer rating. But even that stat is not perfect. It tells part of the story.

But the individual does his part of the team effort very well. Better than others. The comparison that you hear sometimes is what would Brady do if he was an Indy Colt , or a Dallas cowboy? Like he landed here with Belichick and they did their thing. It's impossible and it just goes back to "stats are for losers." Haha.. who said that? I forget .

I agree the wins total is dubious for a QB.. I don't like it when that is bandied about. It's a curiosity as most stats should be classified.
 
I'm not sure if you're ranting against the stats? But individual stats are for comparison to other players . But stats are always incomplete. .. the best stats are meta-stats which combine several which increases the truthfulness, I think. Like passer rating. But even that stat is not perfect. It tells part of the story.

But the individual does his part of the team effort very well. Better than others. The comparison that you hear sometimes is what would Brady do if he was an Indy Colt , or a Dallas cowboy? Like he landed here with Belichick and they did their thing. It's impossible and it just goes back to "stats are for losers." Haha.. who said that? I forget .

I agree the wins total is dubious for a QB.. I don't like it when that is bandied about. It's a curiosity as most stats should be classified.



Well I mean technically all stats are team stats, but just to dismiss wins is not really good either. I can not really say a Qb in history who just won a ton of games who sucked.
 
I'll pass...I only check twitter for Mike Reiss and a few other reputable reporters.

Ah but if you avoid social media you miss gems like this one, which is the setup required for passing stats to actually be individual stats

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="tl" dir="ltr">Year 20 | 🎥 Ari Fararooy <a href="https://t.co/sXep0qKLXI">pic.twitter.com/sXep0qKLXI</a></p>— Tom Brady (@TomBrady) <a href="https://twitter.com/TomBrady/status/1159495472899403776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Spend 5 minutes on twitter

---------- Post added at 09:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------



Qb in most cases is the most important player on the team. Its also the most sought after position, so I would think it contributes quite a bit to wins.

Trent Dilfer, Jeff Hostetler, and Doug Williams all say hello.
 
Trent Dilfer, Jeff Hostetler, and Doug Williams all say hello.

Dilfer is 58-55
Hoss is 51-32
Williams is 38-42


None of them are even in the top 50 in wins.

Also I mean those are outliers not really the norm. When you have a team that is successful for a long time, that team usually has a good QB, this is not science.
 
Carson Palmer > Joe Montana because stats. Kirk Cousins > Joe Montana because passer rating.

The argument of fools and the intellectually dishonest.

Who would you want with 2:00 left on the clock in the 4th quarter down by 4 points?

If you answer Carson Palmer or Kirk Cousins over Joe Montana because they are statistically better, you're a moron. There's a stat for you.:dith:

Oh, and Tono Romo, too...higher passer rating than Steve Young.
 
Back
Top